You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Any of you listen to NPR? Did you hear the interview with Wendell Potter, the former insurance power-player turned whistle-blower? I only caught the tail end of the interview, but I was really interested in what I was hearing.

Here's an article on it, but I'd much prefer to find an actual transcription of the interview.

I recall him saying that he felt the insurance giants had been successful in duping the majority of Americans into fearing nationalized healthcare. I thought his opinion was really valuable given his background. (If anyone knows where I can find a transcription or a recording of the entire interview, I'd be grateful.)

Good article.
Thanks for posting.

Anyone who has the balls to stand up against that corrupt machine is fine by me.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. — Mark Twain

But what type of reform? The latest polls I've seen show that the majority of Americans do NOT want single-payer health care, and there is a major split between people who are concerned about extending coverage to the uninsured vs. those who are concerned with controlling costs.

This article in FAIR indicates that the term "single-payer" has always been heavily under-reported in the mainstream US media-- basically censored. Instead of informing the public, the way in which healthcare reform issues are presented in the media blurs the lines between different possible systems. It seems that, though citizens have no education on what exactly the single-payer system is, they still support, today and yesteryear, health reform in some nationalized form:

New York Times polling since 1990 had "consistently found majorities--ranging from 54 percent to 66 percent--in favor of tax-financed national health insurance." The numbers today? A New York Times/CBS poll found 59 percent in favor of government-provided national health insurance.

This article in FAIR indicates that the term "single-payer" has always been heavily under-reported in the mainstream US media-- basically censored. Instead of informing the public, the way in which healthcare reform issues are presented in the media blurs the lines between different possible systems. It seems that, though citizens have no education on what exactly the single-payer system is, they still support, today and yesteryear, health reform in some nationalized form:

^ Of course public opinion sours because of the level of dangerous, manipulative information that is being espoused by the insurance companies and their lackey lobbyists. There is no honest, open discourse because if people knew how they have been taken, they wouldn't support the status quo of what passes for health care in this country.

I also find it extremely revolting that Obama's plan is compared to nazism and he is being called "Hitler." That is incredibly offensive to people who know even a semblance of history and know what he did.

^ Of course public opinion sours because of the level of dangerous, manipulative information that is being espoused by the insurance companies and their lackey lobbyists. There is no honest, open discourse because if people knew how they have been taken, they wouldn't support the status quo of what passes for health care in this country.

So now the public's opinion isn't worthwhile because it has soured on something you'd prefer? How wonderfully democratic of you.

I also find it extremely revolting that Obama's plan is compared to nazism and he is being called "Hitler." That is incredibly offensive to people who know even a semblance of history and know what he did.

Godwin's Law in action. Dubya was called the world's #1 terrorist. People will always resort to ad hominem attacks and ludicrous distortions when their biases are pronounced.

Here is a link to the transcript of the Bill Moyers/Wendell Potter interview.

Here is a link to a transcript of Wendell Potter's testimony before the US Senate.

We have great medical coverage through my husband's job, but we haven't always and no one really has job security anymore.

We have been on Medicaid and did not find it to be a terrible system (except when we encountered the occasional medical professional who was willing to take Medicaid money, but did not feel compelled to act professionally toward Medicaid patients). The application process was a little intrusive, but it is an income-based program, so it is only fair that they be able to verify your income. My state has privatized the administration of Medicaid since I was on it and I have heard that they are much less efficient and user friendly, making it more difficult for qualified families to receive coverage.

My dad gets health care through the VA and has had a good experience overall. He thinks their information system is especially well run and efficient.

My mother-in-law, who is totally against any public option, has had herself made a dependent of her daughter and son-in-law primarily so she can receive health care through the military. She is having to wait for a needed, but not lifesaving surgery, but this has not caused her to purchase private health insurance.

I am in favor of a public option, not single-payer health care and I don't mind having health insurance be a requirement like car insurance, as long as there is an income-based public option and/or subsidy for low income folks.

I don't mind paying a little extra in taxes in order for people to have access to necessary care and I don't mind paying for our own medical insurance as long as we can afford to do so, the co-pays/deductibles are not prohibitive, and the care is good.

As far as I'm concerned, Wall Street is no more qualified to make decisions about my health than the government is and rationing by poverty or by a corporate bureaucrat not superior to rationing by a government bureaucrat.

The scare-tactics and misinformation I'm seeing sway so many people that I know and who would even benefit (or are already benefiting ) from a public option is baffling and disheartening.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” ~ John Rogers

Dear pure mercury: I know you are a firm believer in libertarianism and the free market. I know that Milton Friedman is someone you admire. We clearly have different political philosophies, but I find it strange that you attack my "democratic" beliefs. I said nothing about the "public's opinion not being worthwhile." Your words, not mine. I was actually agreeing with your post.

So, I would prefer to stick to the topic because it is so critical. I will read and reread my posts to make sure there is no personal attacks on your character, as well. Just because we come from different sides of the political spectrum doesn't mean we won't find some common ground, somewhere...and I can be very persistent in looking for that ground.

I've looked at life from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all
Joni Mitchell

Dear pure mercury: I know you are a firm believer in libertarianism and the free market. I know that Milton Friedman is someone you admire. We clearly have different political philosophies, but I find it strange that you attack my "democratic" beliefs. I said nothing about the "public's opinion not being worthwhile." Your words, not mine. I was actually agreeing with your post.

I just find it self-serving that you seem to think that the public is souring because of the evil machinations of interest groups. Perhaps the more people find out about Obamacare, the less they like the details of it?

So, I would prefer to stick to the topic because it is so critical. I will read and reread my posts to make sure there is no personal attacks on your character, as well. Just because we come from different sides of the political spectrum doesn't mean we won't find some common ground, somewhere...and I can be very persistent in looking for that ground.

I appreciate that. However, you never answered me on the Milton Friedman points we were discussing. I am very interested to read what exactly you have read and from which sources.

Uh huh, in the same way that prohibition makes getting drugs more difficult.

This statement supports my point, not yours...

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."